Preemptory Blue Ribbon National Commission on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

June 22: It is 1.7 trillion dollars...so that is another 140 nuclear plant for a total of 340 nuclear plants.

What are we talking about, 70% of the electricity we use in the USA? 

June 21: 

So we spent a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000) on Iraq…we and the world got nothing out of it. Ok, 5 $billion per new nuclear plant. We could build 200 standard size nuclear plants with the best of technology,  with the cost of the Iraq war not including Afghanistan. I get it, the war is like a giant public works program except we got to kill 100,000s of people. It a is public works and jobs program without the ability to enjoy the fruits of our labor and taxes.

We could have shut down our obsolete operating nuclear plants while doubling the capacity of nuclear sector. Basically all our economy would have to pay for is the fuel and upkeep of the new plants for the next 60 years...   

June 16: Mr Meyer has remove his entry from his webs site?

Mr Meyers is saying these plants have a set budget for the operations. If they are spending money on Fukushima, they are withholding funds from training for the same budget.

President Obama and VP Biden,  thi is a cry for help deep within the nuclear industry for a National Commission on the NRC:  

Initial Licensed Operator Exams - Lowest Pass Rate in Five Years - INPO Reveals Shortcomings

Submitted by NUCBIZ on June 14, 2014 - 08:08

By Bob Meyer

Information is available from the NRC website for all the numbers. The industry on the whole is failing on training. Fukushima rigor does not apply in training, a predicted outcome by PROS that training would suffer, hence plant performance will decline. Fukushima resource requirements make other areas of the nuclear model weaker.

INPO/NRC meeting I revealed the disaster of the Initial Licensed Operator Training Programs and the training programs endevour to conform to the NRC inconsitent regional requirements. My exposé stated that as an industry, we are not doing well managing our resources. High failure rates, poor programs, lesson plans out of date, line that does not have the manpower to see an initial class through. These are not new concerns. It is often a revelation to many managers, INPO and the NRC that the Initial Licensed Operator classes are performed on back shift, midnights. An often asked question, "How would you perform going to college on the midnight shift?" INPO and the NRC staff appear to be disconnected. If you have a dual unit plant, you should be required to have a dual unit simualtor (DC Cook). Single units need two simluators to keep trianing programs from double bunking. Simulator training is the choke point.

The new document issued by INPO on June 12, 2014 concerning deficiencies in training clearly shoots INPO in the foot. Ineffective in ensuring a 10CFR50.120 requirement is met, the systematic approach to training breakdown, not following training procedures (T.S. Violation). This is the best job INPO has done in delineating short comings for the second time. As I see it INPO is in noncompliance with the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC. This Memorandum allows the NRC to pass off regulatory oversight to INPO (Board of Directors all Industry CEOs or equiv.) may be a big mistake for nuclear safety.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, and TMI happened for different reasons, but they all have one thing in common.

This article does not reflect the views of the Professional Reactor Operator Society. This is an opinion.

 Show me one issue that would show how corrupts the NRC is…I would point to how the NRC didn’t do a public operability determination on the Palisades primary coolant pump.

It is risk perspectives, it makes all rules plastic.

June 12 NYT blog: Lochbaum offered this reaction:

First, the good news. The indications of elevated tritium levels strongly suggest a leak of radioactively contaminated water from Indian Point (it’s not irrefutable evidence of an ongoing or recent leak since it could be past leakage finally reaching the monitoring wells due to recent rainfall.) This is good news in the sense that all the monitoring wells are fairly recent additions to the site. More than 12 years ago, leakage would either not have been detected or only detected after people started dying, a la Love Canal. So, strange as it seems, awareness is a good thing. It provides time to implement measures to protect people and the environment.

Turning to the bad news, the NRC needs to get off the bench and into the regulating game. All the rhetoric about 20,000 picocuries per liter and neighbors drinking two quarts a day for a year is totally irrelevant.

N.R.C.’s regulations do not allow a drop of radioactively contaminated water to leave Indian Point except via monitored and controlled pathways. Even if the monitoring wells constituted a monitored pathway (which they don’t despite the name), it’s not a controlled pathway. Thus, N.R.C.’s regulations are being violated. But N.R.C. does not enforce those regulations. N.R.C. could impose a fine of $130,000 per day. That would give Entergy ample incentive to quickly find the leak (and stop the fine tally) and to implement steps to prevent future leaks (and future fines).

But nooooo. The N.R.C. instead invoked the “no blood, no foul” rule and becomes Entergy’s ally in allowing ongoing leaks (and ongoing crimes.)

The regulations were adopted following a public rulemaking process. That process allowed the public to chime in if the proposed regulations seemed too tame. The process allowed owners to chime in if the proposed regulations seemed too onerous. The final regulations adopted by the N.R.C. by definition became Goldilocks standards, neither too harsh nor too lean.

The regulations are essentially three-way contracts between the N.R.C., plant owners, and the public. The regulations protect owners from the N.R.C. requiring more stringent, and more costly, measures. The regulations should protect the public from the N.R.C. accepting less than compliance with the regulations.

But the N.R.C. is breaching its contract with the public around Indisn Point. It is allowing Entergy to leak radioactively contaminated water from Indoan Point as long as that leakage dies not kill people.

The N.R.C. should enforce its regulations or change its name to N.C. For the R in N.R.C. stands for Regulatory and the N.R.C. needs to do something to deserve such labeling or the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] should get after them for false advertising.

I documented the regulations the N.R.C. had established but the ignored in my September 2010 report Regulatory Roulette.

Originally posted on 6/9

(I am always in a  continuing process to update this entry and fix my errors. I will cue you into I changed something.)

June 13: This would be the accident I’d be concerned about with large scale popping of pins and freeing up large amounts of reactivity. This kind of accident would emerge within a few seconds. We’d still have the rods out and supplying feed water to the core. Many fuel pellets would be exposed to the water and moderator...would be freed from the cladding. You would have that cascade accident with one assembly after another being damaged. We would have a tremendous insertion of reactivity...the end result would be a steam explosion.(hyperbole) It might have enough energy to blow off the reactor head, remember the exploding Fukushima plants...then it would disperse fuel all over the local environments.   

SL-1

You should talk to me about the Vermont Yankee event I exposed with their one “pin”  in core steam explosion. It tore open the cladding of one pin and dispersed pellets into the coolant. Coolant leaked into the pin surrounding the fuel pellets, they pulled a rod nearby...which caused the fuel pellets to overheat and created the opportunity of a nuclear reactivity steam explosion.   

Ok, this is the smart question...this is the cover-up.

Salem 2 PCP potential event

(fixed this up a bit on 6/11)You notice the pump seizure with a bolt is an issue with Salem and threatening fuel damage, while a 5 by 12 inch impeller blade, with the lost blade being an inch thick, is not analysed as pump seizure stoppage accident at Palisades. The disparity between these two plant's accident analysis are shocking.

Fuel assembly:

So a fourth of the water flow in the core quickly stops...hot spot and areas where there is higher local power levers begin to quickly heat up. May be one fuel pin burst open, may be 10 pins burst open, may be a whole fuel assembly's pins burst open... You could consider any fuel pellet coming in contact with coolant water as super moderated and being able to quickly generate a lot more power and heat than normal at normal power operations. If don’t think it would take a lot of fuel pellets to put out so much power and heat only steam and water vapor would remain in the assembly. So that would cause addition pins to pop. Say the majority of pins popped in a assembly, the pins would be scrambled in the assembly, the fuel pellets would congregate at the bottom of the assembly and clog up the flow. Does those broken fuel pellets at the bottom of the assembly end with in a local "steam explosion", then bend and damage the assembly through the tremendous heat and power being produced there? Is there enough energy in the steam and vapor to seriously damage the neighbor assembly?  It is the beginning of a cascaded where pins in another neighbor assembly start to pop and damage the assemble, then another, then another. In this process we might not have scrammed yet.

How the assemblies are nestled together:

May be one, two or three assemblies get destroyed, maybe a rod can’t get all the way in the core...but the nuclear reaction stop. diverse cooling to the core is never threatened. What emergency classification would you be in? It would telegraph to outsider how serous the accident is. There is going to be a tremendous amount of freed radioactivity in the core if just one assemble gets destroy...lots if only one or two pins are destroyed. It is going to be a nasty cleanup of the core and it would be questionable if it is worth the price of a cleanup. But there would be little off plant release of radiation.

How do you think the outsiders would portray this? The antinukes would say there was a core meltdown. The NRC and plant would say they were always safe. This is just normal and expected. The UFSAR and plant licencing allows this. Can you imagine the media and political debate out of this?

Thanks NEI. Fuel pins or rods:

See, basically risk perspective only protects us from a severe core melt...this was mostly a small partial core meltdown with diverse core cooling always available. That is what they mean when they say its safe...safe mean less than severe core meltdown and it wouldn’t happen very often. I saying the political and public fallout would be severe, industry threatening...but it is all really a small partial meltdown. See how the nuclear industry doesn’t protect themselves from such a close near death experience and risk traumatizing a significant segment of our population. One, two, or three destroyed assemblies would be defined a safe and acceptable...but the outsiders would think you are bsing them on a meltdown and loss of another plant.

I am just saying this would be a severely painful and damaging event for the nation... but the NRC treats a partial core meltdown as a walk in the park in their analysis. Risk perspective does not capture public and political risk...it just looks at not having a severe core melt and limiting its off site release.  Risk perspectives should carry public credibility or political fallout and limiting a severe core melt and resultant unacceptable off site doses. All this is a profit!  

The problem is, most media outlets don’t have the money to hire nuclear expert reporters. There just is not a big audience for this. So they have to depend on a very limited group of experts for advice.  

You might have a good story...the reporter has no idea what you are talking about. The nukes don’t talk, they only have a limited amount of pro safety people. So they don’t know what you are talking about...that defaults into looking for a so called credentialed experts. Who says they know what their talking about, even if they got a engineering degree or PhD? That what their lawyers need. If they still don’t get it...the safest thing is to drop the story. They are always inclined to drop the story. More than not today, news is entertainment driving circulation...it is unrelated to what information you really need about the world today.  

So lets see, I sent an e-mails to Senator Shaheen, Senator Markey, President Obama and VP Biden Enformable...

How do you contact the NYT with a story idea?

June 10: Bam...got the managing editor of the NYT Mr. Baquet on my side?

I know, just throwing a pebble in a ocean's worth of internet data...

(Shit…I made a spelling or word mistake to the president and VP :) Was the word I was looking for preemptory or peremptory. I hate English, but it is the only language I know? I think I got it right. I was hoping I was going to look smarter than I am.).

THANK YOU for writing The New York Times newsroom. We are grateful to readers who take the time to help us report thoroughly and accurately. Your message will reach the appropriate editor or reporter promptly.

Please note that we do not open e-mail attachments. Resend your message with the information in the body of the message.

What happens now that your message has been received, or if you have more questions?

ACCURACY: If you have pointed out an error, a correction will appear on Page A2 as soon as possible. Corrections for articles in weekly sections usually appear in those sections. Because dozens of readers often point out the same error, we cannot notify each person that we are publishing a correction. Please accept our thanks now.

If we decide that a correction is not necessary, an editor will be in touch to explain our reasons.

NEWS COVERAGE: If you are writing to give us feedback on our coverage, your message will be forwarded to the appropriate department. Because of the volume of e-mail we receive, we cannot respond to every comment. But we pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply individually.

EDITORIALS: News and opinion departments operate separately at The Times. If you have written to comment on an editorial or an Op-Ed article and want your comments considered for publication as a Letter to the Editor, please resend your message to letters@nytimes.com More information on submitting letters can be found at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html

Send Op-ed submissions to oped@nytimes.com More information can be found at

nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/opedsubmit.html.

NEWSPAPER DELIVERY: Questions about the availability or delivery of

The Times may be telephoned to 1-800-698-4637, e-mailed to 1-800@nytimes.com or posted at homedelivery.nytimes.com

NYTIMES.COM: For technical problems, write: help@nytimes.com

RESEARCH: We are not staffed to do research for the public. But our online archives, dating to 1851, can be accessed by going tonytimes.com and using the search function.

REPRINTS OF ARTICLES: write to rights@nytimes.com

TO BUY PICTURES: write to photosales@nytimes.com

BACK COPIES: 800-543-5380.

CUSTOMER SERVICE DIRECTORY: Many questions about The Times are answered at nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html

And ABC news...

Also Aljazeera and The Japan Times...

Washington Post...

Dear Senator Shaheen, 
 

To Sarah_Holmes@shaheen.senate.gov

 

Today at 9:27 PM

 

Dear Senator Shaheen,

 

Could I get your help with asking president Obama to set up a “Preemptory Blue Ribbon National Commission on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? We had a set of recent very troubling events in the nuclear industry...Millstone’s loss of all outside electricity being one of them among others. Please look over my blog at your convenience with other recent events.

http://steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/2014/06/preemptory-blue-ribbon-national.html

“Preemptory Blue Ribbon National Commission on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

“Think, if they threw a blue ribbon commission at the anomalies in the off shore oil well industry before Deepwater, or Fukushima? Say the president throws five presidential blue ribbon commissions at the world, what would we discovered and learn about in our greater world just by mistake, with only one blue ribbon commission really being productive in preventing another Deep Water Horizon type accident. Wouldn’t it be worth our waste of treasure? You are dam lucky I am not president.”

This below is e-mail I sent to president Obama.

Dear President Obama,

This is about the dysfunction in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and my worry about the nuclear industry. I have actually spent countless hours talking with NRC inspectors and their bosses. I got many documents submitted on the NRC Adams wed site and have been involved in many NRC internal processes (10 CFR 20: 2.206). I have been watching and monitoring these guys for decades. Years ago I was a worked at nuclear plant and was a licensed operator. I was in Navy between 1974 and 1980...I served on the experimental fast attack nuclear submarine the USS Lipscomb SSN 685.

I am nether pro or antinuke...I am a transparency nut. All I want to see is honesty and truth. I need no confidentiality or anonymity of any kind.

I know two NRC commissioner might be stepping down in the next few months...got a huge issue with commissioners Apostolakis.

We need a reset with the NRC. I am asking for a preemptory presidential blue ribbon national Commission on the NRC. I got a lot of recent industry issues written up on my blog...we are in serious trouble.

Call me anytime?

Sincerely,
 

Mike Mulligan
Hinsdale, HN
16033368320

National Commission On the Role of Nuclear Power in the United State

Report to the President

National Commission on the Adequacy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Future of the Nuclear Power Industry

Then-candidate Barack Obama said in 2007 that the five-member NRC had become "captive of the industries that it regulates" and Joe Biden indicated he had absolutely no confidence in the agency

 

What the hell happened to these guys: Joe Biden in the Keene Sentinel in 2007 just a few miles from my home?

“What kind of confidence do you have on the regulatory capacity of the NRC (Keene Sentinel reporter)? “NONE NONE (candidate Biden).”

“I have been the biggest nemesis when I was on there for the NRC”

“It’s like getting homed, ah, coming into a small town playing at basketball championship with the local referees.” 

“On that NRC, there would be watch dogs, not house dogs. There would watch dogs.”

“I would restaff the NRC differently. “

“I would reconstitute the NRC.”

“If they were fundamentally reconstituting the plant”  

Your choice, you can have the presidential report before the debilitating accident or after the accident?

The DeepWater Horizon Presidentual commission.

National Commission On the Role of Nuclear Power in the United States

Report to the President

National Commission on the Adequacy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Future of the Nuclear Power Industry.

Here is my pitch to President Obama on throwing a full scale “Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission” (like Challenger, Columbia and Deepwater Horizon) on the NRC and nuclear industry. From soup to nuts:
(If he only had the guts)

Dear President Obama,

“OK, this link is just for general interest, or is it? Check out for yourself if this shutdown is on the internet anywhere. The NRC PR guy was the only one allowed to talk to me…this wasn’t how I discovered it. She talked about a sump leak rate who took them out. They wouldn’t tell me what the leak rate was and the limits. I utterly hate talking to these PR guys, but I’ve learned to put an artificial polite face on it now and a smile! You made me just like the rest you 

Secret Cooper Nuclear Related related shutdown

I am the designated crazy guy with poor communication skills in this, I mean no harm.

I think a presidential code of ethics is a great idea for people in and around the NRC….a Obama edict. If you got Obama’s ears, why don’t you throw in a presidential blue ribbon commission on the nuclear industry and especially the NRC?

Mark my idiot words; we are going to be dealing with this in the nuclear industry.

“The hazard analysis requirement stipulates the analysis must be appropriate for the complexity of the operation, and the hazards identified from the analysis must then be managed.( pg 82)”

Think, if they threw a blue ribbon commission at the anomalies in the off shore oil well industry before Deepwater, or Fukushima? Say the president throws five presidential blue ribbon commissions at the world, what would we discovered and learn about in our greater world just by mistake, with only one blue ribbon commission really being productive in preventing another Deep Water Horizon type accident. Wouldn’t it be worth our waste of treasure? You are dam lucky I am not president.

Let me paint you a crazy man’s picture in a couple of e-mails…”

Yep, the agency would be more credible if the board had anti nukes and safety activist on the board or higher. Constructive antis not obstructionist.

Ok. you got to get rid of these academic types as commissioners with no direct nuclear plant experience. These academic people are invaluable, but they have the wrong skill sets and experience base for this kind of work.

I’d separate the Nuclear Power (NPE) enterprise from everything else. I put the NPE under the executive branch…but I won’t wet my pants if I can’t get my way. You got to get this this away from the senators and congressman.

I’d put the new gov agency under a single agency head or CEO thingy. Maybe a board of director thing under the agency head. All these guys would have deep NPE roots, maybe utility Ceos, nuclear power fleet Vps and union executives overseeing their plants with direct experience. I don’t care if you load up the board with utility executive guys…but you need one union guy in there to keep everyone straight. Exactly, get senior engineers on the board with direct nuclear experience. If it is construction time, a construction industry CEO and engineer on the board.

Maybe a advisory board or department to get the government rules thing right.

I’d swear to god, I’d love a experience politician on the board or even in the agency head spot.

What is the NTSB chairwomen up to today?

I mean, if you are thinking about an industry reset? And the rebuild?

mike

Regulatory Capture

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

According to Frank N. von Hippel, despite the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has often been too timid in ensuring that America's 104 commercial reactors are operated safely:

Nuclear power is a textbook example of the problem of "regulatory capture"—in which an industry gains control of an agency meant to regulate it. Regulatory capture can be countered only by vigorous public scrutiny and Congressional oversight, but in the 32 years since Three Mile Island, interest in nuclear regulation has declined precipitously.[

Then-candidate Barack Obama said in 2007 that the five-member NRC had become "captive of the industries that it regulates" and Joe Biden indicated he had absolutely no confidence in the agency.

The NRC has given a license to "every single reactor requesting one", according Greenpeace USA nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio to refer to the agency approval process as a "rubber stamp".[55] In Vermont, ten days after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami that damaged Japan's Daiichi plant in Fukushima, the NRC approved a 20-year extension for the license of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, although the Vermont state legislature had voted overwhelmingly to deny such an extension.[55][56] The Vermont plant uses the same GE Mark 1 reactor design as the Fukushima Daiichi plant.[55] The plant had been found to be leaking radioactive materials through a network of underground pipes, which Entergy, the company running the plant, had denied under oath even existed. Representative Tony Klein, who chaired the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said that when he asked the NRC about the pipes at a hearing in 2009, the NRC didn't know about their existence, much less that they were leaking.[55] On March 17, 2011, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a study critical of the NRC's 2010 performance as a regulator. The UCS said that through the years, it had found the NRC's enforcement of safety rules has not been "timely, consistent, or effective" and it cited 14 "near-misses" at U.S. plants in 2010 alone.[57] Tyson Slocum, an energy expert at Public Citizen said the nuclear industry has "embedded itself in the political establishment" through "reliable friends from George Bush to Barack Obama", that the government "has really just become cheerleaders for the industry."

There have also been instances of a revolving door. Jeffrey Merrifield, who was on the NRC from 1997 to 2008 and was appointed by presidents Clinton and Bush, left the NRC to take an executive position at The Shaw Group,[55] which has a nuclear division regulated by the NRC.

A year-long Associated Press (AP) investigation showed that the NRC, working with the industry, has relaxed regulations so that aging reactors can remain in operation.[59] The AP found that wear and tear of plants, such as clogged lines, cracked parts, leaky seals, rust and other deterioration resulted in 26 alerts about emerging safety problems and may have been a factor in 113 of the 226 alerts issued by the NRC between 2005 and June 2011.[59] The NRC repeatedly granted the industry permission to delay repairs and problems often grew worse before they were fixed.

Bottom line, why I do this. If the big accident comes, I am betting on it, I going to be able say I did 1000 times  more stuff than any ordinary person. I am still go to terrible regret or be guilty I didn’t do enough to stop it though.

Fired for Taking Pictures in a Nuclear Plant with a Cell Phone

Sounds like the pictures were put on the internet...was he blowing the whistle?

U.S. nuclear commission ends Fort Calhoun security probe

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has wrapped up an investigation of a security violation at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station that happened during the 2011 floods.

The agency says the violation involved an employee who “willfully failed to perform required duties,” according to a letter sent Friday to Lou Cortopassi, chief nuclear officer at the plant.

Thank you for reading and relying on Omaha.com for your news and information. You have now viewed your 30 day allowance of 15 free articles.

 

Omaha Public Power District spokesman Mike Jones said the incident involved an employee’s “inappropriate use of a cellphone camera in the protected area.”

The employee no longer works for the district, he said, and the incident didn’t pose a risk to public safety. He noted that the violation is classified in the second-lowest severity category.

 

PPL to Spin Off Susquehanna like Vermont Yankee?

PPL stock price has been extremely weak 2008 crash....down big time today!


Are they pulling a Vermont Yankee...except including impaired fossel plant. I won't approve it for the Nukes.

PPL to Spin Off Susquehanna Nuclear Plant and Other Generation Assets

Rate This

Nuclear Street News Team

Wed, Jun 11 2014 9:26 AM

Is Susquehanna and other power plant PPL's dogs... right. they keep the regulated plants.

PPL Corp. has announced that it plans to spin off its reactors at Susquehanna and other merchant power plants in a deal with Riverstone Holdings.

The new publicly traded company, called Talen Energy Corp., will operate 15,320 megawatts of nuclear and fossil generating capacity. PPL will retain its regulated plants while divesting itself of the Pennsylvania reactors and other assets in a deal that distributes 65 percent of new Talen shares to PPL stockholders.

The spinoff is subject to regulatory approval, including that of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Susquehanna uses two General Electric Type 4 boiling water reactors licensed in the early 1980s to generate about 2,600 megawatts. In a release Monday, PPL said it expects layoffs after the deal closes, although it hasn't determined which plants or positions will be affected.

Entergy Nuclear Spinoff Taps Rising Plant Values

By

Rebecca Smith

Updated Nov. 6, 2007 11:59 p.m. ET

Entergy Crp plans to spin off about half of its nuclear-power plants and create the nation's first stand-alone, publicly traded nuclear-energy company, underscoring how the once-shunned nuclear sector is getting a lift from increasing anxiety about other methods of making electricity.
Less than a decade ago, Entergy was picking up distressed nuclear assets on the cheap. In one case, it bought a plant for little more than the value of fuel on hand. Now Entergy, a New Orleans company with utilities in four Southeastern states, estimates it will be able to take assets for which it paid about $2 billion and put them in a new company with a market value approaching $20 billion, according to Chief Executive Officer Wayne Leonard.
The move puts pressure on other big nuclear operators to consider similar action. CEO John Rowe of Chicago's Exelon Corp., the biggest owner of nuclear capacity in the U.S., said: "It's something we constantly look at." The company reaped most of its third-quarter profit from its nuclear fleet, not its regulated utilities.
U.S. policy makers are giving nuclear power new respect out of concern about emissions blamed for global warming from existing coal-fired plants, and they are increasingly pessimistic about prospects for new ones. Existing nuclear plants have more value as the estimated cost of building new units rises.
There are other factors. Entergy, Exelon and other consolidators have increased the productivity of nuclear plants, and they are able to collect rising prices in deregulated markets as supply margins shrink, including new "capacity" payments in organized Northeast markets.
During the next five years, sales contracts on the output of the five plants that Entergy intends to spin off are expiring. It is negotiating new prices that are as much as triple the old ones.

See, the future dogs of Entergy?

The new company will be based in Jackson, Miss., and will have about 5,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity, including the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Mass.; the FitzPatrick plant at Oswego, N.Y.; the Indian Point plant at Buchanan, N.Y.; Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt.; and the recently acquired Palisades plant in Covert, Mich. As an unregulated, standalone company, the new company could carry a higher debt ratio. 

None of the plants is owned by a regulated utility. Entergy's remaining nuclear units, all in the Southeast, are part of utilities currently and will remain so.
Mr. Leonard said he doesn't expect the new company to build nuclear plants, as Entergy is considering doing through its regulated utilities. "If they were going to do a merchant plant, I'd sell my stock in the company," he said, referring to the new company. He said the board decided to spin off the units as a "payday for shareholders" that would capture values they aren't accorded as part of a largely regulated company.
He said the five units currently have earnings, before certain reductions, of about $800 million a year but that they will soon rise to about $1.4 billion as power sales terms are renegotiated. He said a reasonable estimate of earnings in the near future is $2 billion. At 10 times earnings, that would value the company at $20 billion.
Entergy shares rose $5.46, or 4.6%, to $124.15 as of 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading

Salem 2 Going Wild On Us...

Unbelievable: coolant loop loss of coolant accident isn't safety related.

Although federal officials have said that the problem does not affect key safety systems and is not publicly reportable, they also said it could lead to pump failures and breaks that would contaminate the reactor containment building.

 June 22:

Nuke plant pump repairs sap PSEG earnings

 PSEG’s Salem Unit 2 continued to sit out an ordinarily lucrative run of hot weather last week as the company worked to recover from dozens of critical bolt failures in four key reactor coolant pumps. 

Although PSEG has declined to discuss the problem, federal regulators said bolts holding water-moving impellers were found to have broken or sheared off in all four of the 30-foot high pumps in Unit 2. The pumps return cooling water to the reactor core after the coolant passes through heat transfer units that make steam for turbine generators. 

Company officials broadly confirmed a problem in mid-May when they reported a delay in restarting the plant from a refueling that began in mid-April. 

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, some of the broken bolts wound up in the bottom of the reactor core itself or in plant piping. Part of one damaged pump just above the impeller was believed to have dropped and slightly touched the spinning impeller which can rotate thousands of times a minute. 

“As we get into a period of higher demand, the potential financial impact increases,” said Paul Patterson, a financial analyst who follows the industry for New York-based Glenrock Associates. “The sooner they get it back, the better.” 

NRC officials said PSEG had to remove all four pumps and send them off-site for work. Although federal officials have said that the problem does not affect key safety systems and is not publicly reportable, they also said it could lead to pump failures and breaks that would contaminate the reactor containment building. 

“At this point, we are not commenting further on the bolting issue until the unit returns” to service, said PSEG Nuclear spokesman Joe Delmar. Interim reports on progress or potential restart schedules, he said, could affect power markets and pricing. 

Patterson said that the relatively low costs for nuclear plant fuel and day-to-day operations gives it an advantage during high-demand periods, when prices are high. A quick comeback is uncertain, however. 

“It’s not just a simple situation where you fix the problem,” Patterson said. “It’s a highly regulated facility, as are all nuclear plant. The NRC is obviously going to want to see that the situation is fixed, and they also want to see what caused it. That takes some time.” 

Unit 2 is one of three reactors at the Salem/Hope Creek nuclear complex in New Jersey, on Artificial Island along the Delaware River southeast of Port Penn.

June 10: Salem 2 PCP potential event

(fixed this up a bit on 6/11)You notice the pump seizure with a bolt is an issue with Salem and threatening fuel damage, while a 5 by 12 inch impeller blade, with the lost blade being an inch thick, is not analysed as pump seizure stoppage accident at Palisades. The disparity between these two plant's accident analysis are shocking.

Fuel assembly:

So a fourth of the water flow in the core quickly stops...hot spot and areas where there is higher local power levers begin to quickly heat up. May be one fuel pin burst open, may be 10 pins burst open, may be a whole fuel assembly's pins burst open... You could consider any fuel pellet coming in contact with coolant water as super moderated and being able to quickly generate a lot more power and heat than normal at normal power operations. If don’t think it would take a lot of fuel pellets to put out so much power and heat only steam and water vapor would remain in the assembly. So that would cause addition pins to pop. Say the majority of pins popped in a assembly, the pins would be scrambled in the assembly, the fuel pellets would congregate at the bottom of the assembly and clog up the flow. Does those broken fuel pellets at the bottom of the assembly end with in a local "steam explosion", then bend and damage the assembly through the tremendous heat and power being produced there? Is there enough energy in the steam and vapor to seriously damage the neighbor assembly? It is the beginning of a cascaded where pins in another neighbor assembly start to pop and damage the assemble, then another, then another. In this process we might not have scrammed yet.

 How the assemblies are nestled together:

May be one, two or three assemblies get destroyed, maybe a rod can’t get all the way in the core...but the nuclear reaction stop. diverse cooling to the core is never threatened. What emergency classification would you be in? It would telegraph to outsider how serous the accident is. There is going to be a tremendous amount of freed radioactivity in the core if just one assemble gets destroy...lots if only one or two pins are destroyed. It is going to be a nasty cleanup of the core and it would be questionable if it is worth the price of a cleanup. But there would be little off plant release of radiation.

How do you think the outsiders would portray this? The antinukes would say there was a core meltdown. The NRC and plant would say they were always safe. This is just normal and expected. The UFSAR and plant licencing allows this. Can you imagine the media and political debate out of this?

Thanks NEI. Fuel pins or rods:

 

See, basically risk perspective only protects us from a severe core melt...this was mostly a small partial core meltdown with diverse core cooling always available. That is what they mean when they say its safe...safe mean less than severe core meltdown and it wouldn’t happen very often. I saying the political and public fallout would be severe, industry threatening...but it is all really a small partial meltdown. See how the nuclear industry doesn’t protect themselves from such a close near death experience and risk traumatizing a significant segment of our population. One, two, or three destroyed assemblies would be defined a safe and acceptable...but the outsiders would think you are bsing them on a meltdown and loss of another plant.

This just gets worst and worst...I bet the NRC is getting nervous why I called them.

Broken bolts found in all of PSEG Nuclear's Salem 2 reactor cooling pumps

LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK TWP. — PSEG Nuclear has now found broken-off bolt pieces inside all four of the huge pumps which help cool the nuclear reactor at its Salem 2 plant, officials said.

Nonsense ...The NRC says broken off bolts and nuts in all pumps are completely safe and the inspection was completely unnecessary, as the 50 or whatever bolts and nuts rattling around in the coolant and core was always safe. Idiots, what why did you even look...

Errant bolt heads have been found in the bottom of the reactor coolant pumps and even at the bottom of the reactor core itself, settled under the nuclear fuel rods. 

And some of the bolt heads that have broken off have not yet been accounted for, federal regulators confirmed Tuesday.

Dummies, what did you even count the discovered bolts...the NRC per Palisades precedence says missing and broken parts in the core and coolant are and will be completely safe.

The bolts secure parts known as turning vanes on the inside of the pump. The vanes direct water out of the pump into the reactor where it circulates to cool the core.
Salem 2 has been shut down since April 12 when a rescheduled refueling outage began. During routine inspections, workers found all 20 of the bolts that hold turning vanes in place inside one of the four pumps had failed.
This discovery prompted plant officials to then inspect the three other pumps used to cool the reactor.
In two of the other pumps all of the bolts were found to have failed and broken off. In the fourth pump, nine of the bolts had severed heads, six were intact and the others showed signs of decay, according to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"We now have a comprehensive picture what is going on inside of all of the pumps," Sheehan said Tuesday.
Some of the new information came to light in a "Voluntary Notification For An Item of Regulatory Interest" the utility filed with the NRC this week.
In that notice, the utility said in at least one instance the failure of the bolts allowed the turning vane assembly to drop inside the pump. Inspections showed there was "evidence of slight contact" between the turning vane and the impeller — which pulls in and pushes out water — at the bottom of the pump.
But the utility said in the notice there was no danger.
"Salem Unit 2 has had no indications to date of adverse operating conditions of any RCPs (reactor coolant pumps) due to turning vane assembly detachment which would compromise plant safety."
The reactor coolant pumps, which stand about 30 feet tall, were removed from the plant site at Artificial Island, to be taken apart and inspected.
The stainless steel bolts holding the turning vane assemblies in place are about four inches long and an inch wide.
The broken bolts are being blamed on the stress-corrrosion-cracking process, a phenomenon seen in both nuclear power plants and in other industrial plants, Sheehan

Stress-corrrosion-cracking process is a cover-up...the happy ever after story. Use you dam brain, why didn't they have this problem 20 years ago with the same chemical environment. What didn't they have bolts falling out and cracking 20 years ISCC. It is preposterous they would all crack simultaneously. A few will crack, then sear...then fall out. That is how you would see it.

said.
The pumps are designed by Westinghouse and there are only 10 of this specific model in question in the world — four at the Salem 2 reactor and six at the Surry Power Station in Surry, Va., which has two nuclear reactors, Sheehan said. While the neighboring Salem 1 reactor is often referred to as Salem 2's twin, Salem 1 pumps have a different bolting configuration.
PSEG Nuclear officials had little further additional comment on the new findings.
"We are proceeding with the removal and repairs as needed for the reactor coolant pumps," said Joe Delmar, a utility spokesman, Tuesday.
Sheehan says agency personnel are closely watching the inspection findings.
"NRC experts are continuing to review this issue, with a focus on PSEG's work to fully understand the extent of the condition and any plans for repairing the pumps prior to the plant being restored to service," Sheehan said.
Sheehan said one of the main concerns was having the loose bolt heads damage or stop the impellers.

I warned the NRC about this, stopping the flow question fuel integrity...

Also, Sheehan said, there could be the possibility of the impeller, moving at such a high rate of speed, striking and disintegrating part of a loose turning vane and sending tiny pieces of metal circulating throughout the reactor cooling system.
Delmar said there is no estimate of when Salem 2 might be ready to go back into service.
Salem 2 is one of three nuclear reactors operated by PSEG Nuclear at its Artificial Island generating site.
The other two — Salem 1 and Hope Creek — remained operating at full power on Tuesday, Delmar said. 

Or it will turn into the convenience of the NRC...they don't have enough resources to do two special inspections in region 1 simultaneously.

Bolt failure found in 3 Salem reactor pumps

Submitted by NUCBIZ on June 10, 2014 - 13:46

PSEG Nuclear workers have found there is a complete failure of all bolts securing water-pushing impellers in three of four Salem Unit 2 reactor coolant pumps, with investigations continuing inside the last unit.
The findings, released Monday, emerged after the discovery of broken parts in one of the big, water-moving units forced the company to delay a post-refueling restart last month.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said Monday all retaining bolts were found to be "sheared or failed" in three of four 30-foot-tall reactor coolant pumps in Salem 2 in New Jersey. The pumps force water back into the reactor core after it circulates through systems that make non-radioactive, pressurized steam used to turn generators.
The 1,158-megawatt Unit 2 went offline and began a refueling outage April 13, with the shutdown extended when broken bolt-heads were found on eight of 20 fasteners that secure a bladed "turning vane" part inside one of the pumps. Subsequent examinations found all 20 bolts to be "sheared or failed" in three of the four pumps, which had to be shipped off-site for examination.
"Because the pumps are part of the reactor coolant system, they are part of a barrier against release of radioactive water, though that water would be captured inside the reactor containment building during an accident," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC's regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
In a limited report on the investigation, PSEG disclosed that investigators found a "detachment and dropping" of a part in a coolant pump, with "slight contact" between the impeller, or blade-like unit that pushes cooling water, and another part that diffuses the pressurized flow.
Joe Delmar, PSEG Nuclear spokesman, said Monday the company is not going to comment any further than what was mentioned in what the company labeled as a "Voluntary Notification for an Item of Regulatory Interest."
"We continue with the repair plan of the reactor coolant pumps," Delmar said in a written statement.
Salem Unit 2 is one of three reactors at PSEG Nuclear's Artificial Island, New Jersey, complex, along the Delaware River southeast of Port Penn and east of Odessa.
Company officials reported that Salem 2 has had "no indications to date of adverse operating conditions" due to detachment of the turning vanes. Salem Unit 1, a near-twin to Unit 2, has the same model pumps with a different bolting scheme.
PSEG and NRC officials have said that stress corrosion – a kind of failure that occurs in some types of metals exposed to particular types of stress, temperature and corrosive conditions – appears to be a likely cause for the bolt failures.
"NRC experts are continuing to review the issue, with a focus on PSEG's work to fully understand the extent of the condition and any plans for repairing the pumps prior to the plant being restored to service," Sheehan said.
Sheehan said later that: "We do not have a hold on at this time that would prevent the unit from being returned to service. However, we would expect that the company would fully understand the issue and effectively repair all of the pumps prior to restart."

I am on the other side of the table than Dave on this. Does't seem much bothers Dave these days? (June 11: Is Dave playing cool because he is in the running for being nomimated for a NRC commisioner position.)

David Lochbaum, a nuclear power engineer and specialist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Monday that the pumps play a part in plant cooling but are not considered part of the plant's safety system. Loss of bolts could become a safety problem if turbine blades, which spin at thousands of revolutions per minute, or other parts broke loose and penetrated the pump housing or moved into other parts of the cooling system.

 Drives me crazy:  "said Monday that the pumps play a part in plant cooling but are not considered part of the plant's safety system".

"It sounds like they caught it early enough," Lochbaum said, noting that severe problems would likely have created vibrations or wobbling that would have been detected by plant sensors.

Me
Mr Hughey,
 

To RidsNrrPMSalem.Resource@nrc.gov

Today at 7:36 PM

Mr Hughey,

I talked to your nice senior resident inspector today about the unit 2 PCP troubles.I believe it is the second time since extending the shutdown. I noted to him about Palisades PCP troubles...cavitation, impeller circulation damage, inadequate NPSH and high pump flow outside plant licensing. I forgot to ask these to him. Are Salem's PCP parameters allowed to operate outside their UFSAR (during su). See Palisades most recent IR.
 

Did any Salem plant PCP impeller blades or anywhere in the pump casing ever have cavitation, pressure pulsing or recirculation (pitting) damage or problems? So that would be impeller blade cracking, lost or detached impeller blades or any kind of cavitation damage. That would be a great question nationwide...certainly the other Salem plant also.
 

I asked him to pass this up to his management.
 

1) I request a special inspection on Unit two and one...

2) Immediately on a emergency bases, shutdown plants with identical or similar pumps, inspect all PCP impellers. Generic implication!

sincerely,
 

Mike Mulligan

Hinsdale, NH

16033368320

Republished from 5/12

Absolute failure of the NRC to make a licensee control quality in a nuclear reactor with Palisades and Salem PCP. So I was bum doped by nuclear employees...it wasn't the diffuser, it was the bolts holding the RCP impeller to the shaft.

Bolt failure found in three SalemUnit 2 reactor coolant pumps 

PSEG Nuclear workers have found complete failure of all bolts securing water-pushing impellers in three of four Salem Unit 2 reactor coolant pumps, with investigations continuing inside the last.

The findings emerged after a discovery of broken parts in one of the big water-moving units forced the company to delay a post-refueling restart last month.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said Monday that all retaining bolts were found to be “sheared or failed” in three of four 30-foot-tall reactor coolant pumps in Salem 2. The pumps force water back into the reactor core after it circulates through systems used to transfer heat and create non-radioactive, pressurized steam to turn generators.

The 1,158-megawatt Unit 2 was taken off line for a refueling April 14, with the shutdown extended when broken bolt-heads were found from eight of 20 fasteners that secure a bladed “turning vane” part inside one of the pumps. Subsequent examinations found all of the 20 bolts to be “sheared or failed” in three of the four pumps, which had to be shipped off-site for examination.

“Because the pumps are part of the reactor coolant system, they are part of a barrier against release of radioactive water, though that water would be captured inside the reactor containment building during an accident,” Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC’s regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, said.

In a limited report on the progress of the investigation, PSEG disclosed that investigators found a “detachment and dropping” of a part in a coolant pump, with “slight contact” between the impeller, or blade-like unit that pushes cooling water, and another part that diffuses the pressurized flow.

Joe Delmar, PSEG Nuclear spokesman, said Monday that the company is “not going to comment any further than what was mentioned in what the company labeled as a “Voluntary Notification for an Item of Regulatory Interest.”

“We continue with the repair plan of the reactor coolant pumps,” Delmar said in a written statement.

Salem Unit 2 is one of three reactors at PSEG Nuclear’s Artificial Island, New Jersey, complex, along the Delaware River southeast of Port Penn and east of Odessa.

Company officials reported that Salem 2 has had “no indications to date of adverse operating conditions” due to detachment of the turning vanes. Salem Unit 1, a near-twin to Unit 2, has the same model pumps with a different bolting scheme.

PSEG and NRC officials have said that stress corrosion, a kind of failure that occurs in some types of metals exposed to particular types of stress, temperature and corrosive conditions – appears to be a likely cause for the bolt failures.

“NRC experts are continuing to review the issue, with a focus on PSEG’s work to fully understand the extent of the condition and any plans for repairing the pumps prior to the plant being restored to service,” Sheehan said.

Sheehan said later that: “We do not have a hold on at this time that would prevent the unit from being returned to service. However, we would expect that the company would fully understand the issue and effectively repair all of the pumps prior to restart.”

May 28

May 28 (Reuters) - PPL Corp said Wednesday it completed refueling and maintenance work on its 1,260-megawatt (MW) Unit 1 at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania but decided to keep the reactor shut for turbine work.

PPL decided to work on the turbine so the company can complete a root cause analysis of the plant's turbine issues later this year, company spokesman Joe Scopelliti said in an email.

He did not say when the unit would likely return to service.
PPL has worked on or inspected the turbines at both Susquehanna units several times over the past few years. In some cases, the company has shut the unit specifically to look at the turbines, while in other cases PPL used a shutdown for other reasons such as refueling or an unplanned outage to inspect the turbines.
Since 2011, the company has inspected the turbines in Unit 1 at least five times and Unit 2 at least six times. Unit 2 most recently shut for a couple weeks in March for turbine work.
Scopelliti has said in the past the problem is with the low-pressure turbines. He said each unit has three low-pressure turbines and one high-pressure turbine. The low-pressure turbines were replaced in 2003 and 2004.
German engineering company Siemens AG manufactured the low-pressure turbines and is working with PPL to resolve the issue.
The high-pressure turbines, meanwhile, were replaced between 2008 and 2011 as part of an uprate or power increase for the reactors.
Meanwhile, the 1,260-MW Susquehanna 2 was operating at full power early Wednesday, according to a report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

May 15:

(It was shortly after the latest turbine trip w/i a day. I don’t know why I can’t come up with the right date. I have talked to numerous inspectors in the last month)

So around my May 8 I called up the Salem senior inspector and left a message. He shortly called me back. We talked about the problems with the recent plant trips. He reminded me he knew me from the Vermont Yankee issues. It was like we was old buddies. He was a NRC facilitator at a few of VY of the contentious meeting. It was few meetings past, when the antis threw cow manure at the inspectors. The NRC had a army of Brattleboro police officers in the meetings and surrounding the high school. There was talk about bringing tanks! I talked to the senior resident about Palisades problems; spoke at length about the meaning of defective PCP impellers. Asked him can you believe the inspectors, said it was safe with the throwing impeller blades all over the place. He didn’t respond. We talked about their brackish service water piping problems...he reminded me they did a rather big piping replacement project.

I just wanted you to know we spent a lot of time talking about Palisades PCP pump problems and I am certain he memorialized the discussion to higher ups.  

May 14

Poor maintenance and confidence men...

PSEG Nuclear has extended a refueling shutdown of its Salem Unit 2 reactor after discovery of unexplained broken bolt heads in part of the coolant system.
Company spokesman Joe Delmar said Wednesday afternoon that "a conservative decision was made to extend the refueling outage to conduct additional internal inspections of the reactor coolant pumps and make any repairs as needed."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said the bolt tops are likely from a part of the coolant pump system.
"The concern is that if bolts holding the turning vane failed, the vane could drop and impact the rotating pump internals," Sheehan said.
PSEG operates three reactors at its Artificial Island site along the Delaware River in New Jersey southeast of Port Penn. The company's Salem Unit 1 plant has reported three unplanned shutdowns this year, potentially subjecting the operation to increased oversight.

Is the Salem nuclear facility in trouble? This is the newest inspection...I'll get the link when it comes up.

 May 9, 2014

SUBJECT: SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 –

NRCINTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000272/2014002 AND 05000311/2014002

This report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced inspections performed by regional inspectors. Inspectors identified five non-cited violations (NCVs) and two findings (FINs) of very low safety significance (Green). The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., greater than Green, or Green, White, Yellow, Red) and determined using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, “Significance Determination Process (SDP),” dated June 2, 2011. Cross-cutting aspects are determined using IMC 0310, “Aspects Within the Cross-Cutting Areas,” dated December 19, 2013. All violations of NRC requirements are dispositioned in accordance with the NRC’s Enforcement Policy, dated July 9, 2013. The NRC’s program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, “Reactor Oversight Process,” Revision 5, dated February 2014

272/ 311

 

PSEG Nuclear operates three nuclear reactors at two facilities in Lower Alloways Creek Township. PSEG owns one reactor at Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station and operates two reactors at Salem Nuclear Power Plant where PSEG Nuclear holds a 57 percent stake (in partnership with Exelon Corporation). Exelon also operates two reactors at Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station in a 50/50 joint venture with PSEG.^[16]

Calvert Cliff: Exelon 

Salem

Owner(s)

	Exelon (43%) PSE&G (57%)

Calvert Cliffs Going Wild On Us: An Indication of Severe Economic Stress on Electric System   

Right, shutdowns damages the nuclear safety equipment along with all the other equipment.

 

Here is the April 14 scram:

"This 4 and 8 hour notification is being made to report that Salem Unit 1 experienced an unplanned automatic reactor trip and subsequent Auxiliary Feedwater system actuation. The automatic trip was initiated from a generator protection relay. A walkdown of the main generator and all protection circuitry has been completed with no visible problems identified. A troubleshooting team is being assembled to determine the exact cause for the generator protection actuation. 11, 12, and 13 Aux Feedwater Pumps automatically started as expected on low Steam Generator water level following the reactor trip. All control rods inserted on the reactor trip. All ECCS and ESF systems functioned as expected.    

 

Their generator protection circuits most suck... 

Salem reactor shutdown reported

Jeff Montgomery, The News Journal

An apparent turbine-generator problem triggered an automatic shutdown of PSEG Nuclear's Salem Unit 1 along the Delaware River southeast of Port Penn Wednesday morning, the third unplanned shutdown at the operation in a month.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that the utility and federal regulators will investigate the 5 a.m. incident, but have already confirmed that the plant is "in a safe condition."

Workers shut down the same plant April 8 after a breakdown in a pump that sends condensed cooling water and steam from generating turbines back to steam-producing equipment.

Unit 1 also tripped off briefly April 13.

STORY: Salem reactor shuts down for second time in a week

STORY: Salem nuclear reactor shut down

NRC rules require stepped-up oversight for reactors that report three unplanned shutdowns within any 7,000 hour, or roughly nine-month, period of consecutive operations.
Salem 1 is the oldest of three reactors at PSEG's Salem/Hope Creek nuclear complex in Lower Alloways Creek, N.J., and was first licensed for operation in 1976. The Salem units can generate about 1,175 megawatts each, with the newer Hope Creek plant rated at 1,219 megawatts.

Salem Unit 2 is presently offline for refueling.